As a witness to your comments at the end of last glow night, I would say that Joe is being more than generous by calling you a 'pro' because your conduct was anything but professional. Your parting shot was a bit more vehement and scatological than you are representing in this thread, and was made as you marched off the course and tore out of the parking lot amidst the shocked silence of the few players left at tourney central--hardly any room for an intelligent, or respectful, conversation there...

Your next choice of action, this pet rant of yours, is still born of the same anger and scatological choice of vocabulary, and includes an attempted character assassination of Joe--hardly the act of a 'pro'. There are very few members of this community that can devote any significant, much less consistent, amount of time to the maintenance and improvement of our courses and Joe is one of those very few. Even though you may have 'toned down' your comments, your continued railroading of the board to either approve or reject your 'measure' is still a thinly veiled attempt to directly shut down Joe's efforts at Downriver--which really makes no sense since they are part of an ongoing need to address erosion and safety issues on the course.

For you to continue to refer to your effort within this thread as a 'measure' is a dis-ingenuous attempt to hijack the board's own documentation and lend credibility to something that you originally referred to as a 'public motion', for which, there is no SDGA documentation to support such an action being carried forth within this online venue. In fact, your entire effort here exists wholly outside of any respect of club procedure and practice, that you purport to champion, and should be ignored by the board altogether. Measures presented to the board for them to approve or reject are intended to be done so within a scheduled club/board meeting that offers an adequate opportunity for club members to be present--not within an online discussion forum that does not satisfactorily represent the populace or opinion of the club at any one given time.

Furthermore, I think your efforts on this thread are doing a great dis-service to the club and the community in general since your specific complaints (teepad for #11 and erosion control on#4), have been shown to be not only approved of, but necessary. It is blatantly hypocritical, if not downright arrogant, for you to think that you can bring about some radically non-procedural, yet seemingly authoritative action by the board, based intrinsically on nothing more than your own personal opinion and social capital within the club.

With that being said, I respectfully request that you cease your efforts here, with this so called 'measure' of yours, because it's not a 'measure', it is not representative of any consensus of thought, and serves no justifiable benefit to the course, club or community.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

Comment

I see you have thought through your comments and have made a few very good points.
To address a few:
I am not a 'Pro' and surely do not consider myself as such, I don't even qualify as ADV under my current rating, yet I often step up to play with better golfers and put my money where my mouth is. Although, this whole discussion leads me to wonder how you heard my comments in person yet Joe did not...

"For you to continue to refer to your effort within this thread as a 'measure' is a dis-ingenuous attempt to hijack the board's own documentation and lend credibility to something that you originally referred to as a 'public motion', for which, there is no SDGA documentation to support such an action being carried forth within this online venue."

This 'documentation' has been the Board's justification for a lot of it's decisions as of late, why wouldn't it be the basis for this one?

You also make a very good point that no Board action is official unless conducted at a meeting, undermining the very Board decisions you are trying to justify... making a decision over the phone without public discussion or a quorum?
As for the difference between 'public motion' and 'measure,' I believe a measure is the result of a 'public motion.'
I publicly made a motion (asked for the board to take a measure under consideration) through the official SDGA public forum.
If the Board were willing to conduct a Club Meeting during our prime operating season, I would be happy to make this motion at that point... this is not the case.

"your continued railroading of the board to either approve or reject your 'measure' is still a thinly veiled attempt to directly shut down Joe's efforts at Downriver"

First off, this is clearly written into the Charter, "The Board reserves the right to approve or reject all measures presented to them." The board does not reserve the right to NOT approve or reject a measure. I am asking the Board to adhere to it's duty. While I can understand your assumptions, they are not correct. This measure is to get the Board to decide if it would like it's club members to take Course Improvements into their own hands or whether it should follow it's own past guidelines by restricting such actions. Joe's actions are done with the best of intentions and I appreciate that, yet they still aren't justified. I don't think I am the first to say that...

As for people not having time to spend improving the course... I would be happy to step onto the course to conduct Course Improvements and know many others who would do the same, yet I was told that it was absolutely frowned upon when people take course improvements upon themselves. (Remember the reaction to Yoduh's alternate tee on 18?!?) I thought this Board position was an understandable and justified stance... I wonder why it has changed. I would like it clarified.

Comment

Good points and well taken.
I have been avoiding DR due to the changes... it frustrates me to play that course anymore.
I do pick up any garbage I see, but no I do not collect cans like Joe. I have expressed this appreciation.

Although, I really don't see the association between these two comments:
I don't have a right to ask for club input unless I pick up Garbage?
No complaints here, just a poll.

Comment

Anyway, I will probably lend a hand at the work party, assuming all permanent projects have been approved by Bressler.

Speaking on that justin Bressler and I will be walking DR sometime this week and so far the talk Bressler and I had today he was QUITE happy with what has been going on at DR but he MADE a suggestion that "we just move the holes that have problems and if we make some club members mad so what" ..THOSE WERE HIS WORDS .. i told him to come down and walk the course and then HE can decide if what I have done is wrong.As for the this comment

Although, this whole discussion leads me to wonder how you heard my comments in person yet Joe did not...

i had nothing bad to say to you then nor do i now .. i heard your comments i just choose to be an adult and not respond to such a childish act .

Comment

I guess I really don't understand what all the confusion and fuss is about here...

This is my recollection:

Several years ago the SDGA was responding to evergrowing safety concerns due to the crossing fairways. In addition, the city expressed concerns about erosion and path beat down.

The overwhelming opinion of the club at that time was a complete redesign. However, we were towards the end of the season and didn't want to make major changes without getting as much input as possible.

Some (immediate) minor changes were proposed to address the major safety and environmental concerns and a call went out for redesign ideas that could be implemented early the following spring.

These two agendas got convoluted and confused with one another. A polarity began that I don't believe was founded.

The board was new and had growing pains. The communication and progress stalled. Members were not keeping up with deadlines for input to either design and felt left out when decisions were made. The whole thing turned into a cluster and the only result was some temporary changes to try to address the safety and erosion issues.

It's well expressed that these changes have diluted the course and very few are even remotely happy about them.

Soooooooo....NOW is the perfect time to start gathering input for a total course redesign for DownRiver. The club and Board can set deadlines for proposals in phases so they can be reviewed and narrowed down to the best possible layout to be voted on by the club members and installed early next spring.

This time those of you who felt so left out will have another opportunity to be heard and be able to vote for the features you like best. You will just have to pay attention to the deadlines for input and the dates for voting on layouts.

It is very possible to do this in a democratic manner with consideration going to the city's requirements. The club has worked out some of it's communication difficulties and I believe this project could be very successful. We would end up with a challenging course, endorsed by the majority of clubmembers and compliant with the city's requirements.

Heck, it might even bring the club together in a stronger way with more casual/rec players joining so they could provide input and more mutual respect amongst all the members.

I definitely will do everything I can to make it to the next SDGA meeting and bring this up as a topic for discussion.

Comment

Downriver is beginning to be a joke! I wonder who put all those trees and branches on the bank of hole 8? I threw my disc down there today and was lucky to not come out with a twisted or broken ankle! Safety should be the first concern!

Comment

Unauthorized work at Downriver needs to stop. This includes branch or rock piling, cutting trees, painting asphalt and the like. At Taylor's request, golfers should not be contacting him - No one outside of the Board except Justin Shrack has been asked to talk to him - and that was only about the Grant from the Park Foundation.

The SDGA Board working under the City Parks Operation Manager is the structure we operate under. I've had a very fruitful relationship with Taylor and have been the primary contact person and will continue to do that until further notice. If anyone wants to know what has been fruitful about that they can call me and we'll talk.

Sky Pilot

Rely on Me

Comment

Downriver is beginning to be a joke! I wonder who put all those trees and branches on the bank of hole 8? I threw my disc down there today and was lucky to not come out with a twisted or broken ankle! Safety should be the first concern!

I would also agree with that. Although those tree's and branches saved a terrible skip into the water yesterday. I for one, just hope that everyone decides to get along and make Downriver great again. As it is, all this bickering between club members on a public, online forum is terrible. What a way to make people look at us Spokanites in a less than pleasant way.

"Honest work is for the downtrodden and the Polish"
Cleveland Brown

Comment

Downriver is beginning to be a joke! I wonder who put all those trees and branches on the bank of hole 8? I threw my disc down there today and was lucky to not come out with a twisted or broken ankle! Safety should be the first concern!

Did you take a penalty stroke for throwing over the edge. That area is out of bounds.

Comment

Nice post Younger!
You seem to have a firm grip on the subject. The cause/effect of poor or inconsistent communications and the clubs opportunity for growth.

One positive thing I can say about the club is: members are given many opportunities to participate
but
fail to recognize that deadlines are the most critical part of the process, there is no half credit for missing the deadline.

I would like to suggest (as a club member) a general meeting is called for sometime in late June early July. This meeting would be a winter pre-planner. I mean ideas would be floated/discussed and then vetted for consideration at the winter meeting.

Action: If club member has an interest with any club issues they should submit a two or three paragraph note for the Summer meeting's agenda. Then the board can round up all the ideas sort them by perceived need and allot time accordingly for there discussion.

Problem: Suggestions and attendance are both critical!

Want to know why things are the way they are?

It's because by default/member apathy the same 4-8 members are the only ones participating throughout the process.

Comment

Nice post Younger!
You seem to have a firm grip on the subject. The cause/effect of poor or inconsistent communications and the clubs opportunity for growth.

One positive thing I can say about the club is: members are given many opportunities to participate
but
fail to recognize that deadlines are the most critical part of the process, there is no half credit for missing the deadline.

I would like to suggest (as a club member) a general meeting is called for sometime in late June early July. This meeting would be a winter pre-planner. I mean ideas would be floated/discussed and then vetted for consideration at the winter meeting.

Action: If club member has an interest with any club issues they should submit a two or three paragraph note for the Summer meeting's agenda. Then the board can round up all the ideas sort them by perceived need and allot time accordingly for there discussion.

Problem: Suggestions and attendance are both critical!

Want to know why things are the way they are?

It's because by default/member apathy the same 4-8 members are the only ones participating throughout the process.

jub

additional thought

By publishing the agenda as well as who suggested them Like minders could intern combine all their efforts into one presentation. Saving both time and frustration